On 4/20/12, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> I don't know what the hell I was thinking with that over-contrived example though
To be fair, that code is hilarious. All bug reports should have this sense of humor, imo. :D

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 06:21:26PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 4/20/12, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> > I don't know what the hell I was thinking with that over-contrived example though
> > To be fair, that code is hilarious. All bug reports should have this sense of humor, imo. :D
Yeah, that deserves a laugh(lang, 7). Or maybe a laugh(lang, 10). But
too much more than that, and it would become laughable. :-P
T
--
Век живи - век учись. А дураком помрёшь.

"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1973.1334938954.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...> On 4/20/12, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
>> I don't know what the hell I was thinking with that over-contrived example though
>> To be fair, that code is hilarious. All bug reports should have this sense of humor, imo. :D
Heh :) It's long-winded for what it's trying to say, though. But maybe I'm just being overly self-critical.

"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote in message news:jmrnlo$22p$1@digitalmars.com...> On 04/20/2012 01:04 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Andrej Mitrovic:
>>>>> I think these features probably belong to some lint-type tool and not the compiler.
>>>> On the contrary, I hope to see them implemented in the D front-end.
>> I've seen again and again that people don't even use warnings, so I don't
>> think many of them use lints.
>> This means, tests should be built-in and
>> active on default (this means I'd like D informational warnings to be
>> active on default, and be disabled with a compiler switch!).
>>>> I don't usually use warnings because of this issue: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6552
Since implicit fallthrough is going away, that's more a problem with a *missing* warning (in the second example) rather than an erroneous warning. So not using warnings doesn't solve that, it just makes all the rest of the warnings go missing, too.

Nick Sabalausky:
> Since implicit fallthrough is going away, that's more a problem with a *missing* warning (in the second example) rather than an erroneous warning.
Implicit fallthrough is going away, but Walter has decided to add it a special case, when the case is totally empty it's allowed. So both programs are correct (I don't love special cases, but here I think Walter doesn't want to cause too much D code disruption).
Bye,
bearophile

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message news:monxicizdjzdlakneftc@forum.dlang.org...> Nick Sabalausky:
>>> Since implicit fallthrough is going away, that's more a problem with a *missing* warning (in the second example) rather than an erroneous warning.
>> Implicit fallthrough is going away, but Walter has decided to add it a special case, when the case is totally empty it's allowed. So both programs are correct (I don't love special cases, but here I think Walter doesn't want to cause too much D code disruption).
>
Oh, that's right, I forgot about that. Nevermind, then.